this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
320 points (96.2% liked)

News

23287 readers
4618 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world 77 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The Democrats have had an entire decade to offer some kind of meaningful opposition and didn't bother. Why would they start now?

[–] sygnius@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's incorrect. There's a lot of obstruction from Republicans to allow Democrats to do anything since most decisions required 2/3rds vote to pass. Democrats could not convict Trump of impeachment with 57% of the vote since they needed more Republicans to push it over 2/3rds.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 45 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Lol, as if there aren't a million other things the fucker could be processed for. We got a...

  1. Convicted rapist (oh sorry... "responsible for" rape, not a conviction, MY BAD!?!), someone who can't stop making sexual remarks when his daughter is next to him and was close to Epstein back in 2002, saying he was a terrific guy and even knew about his interest in women “on the young side”.

  2. Someone that has committed more acts of treason than we could know, including: giving Putin classified documents, like lists of SS agents that are now dead. The SS has tracked down a murdered people for FAR less, the fact that he isn't on a hit list is beyond damming for the US as a "world power".

  3. I feel like I barely even have to mention is all of his fraudulent "businesses". I mean that's the only thing he actually got convicted of, because it's so blatant and easy to do.

The fact this guy not only isn't behind bars, but isn't on a international wanted DEAD list, tells ya everything you need to know.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How do you know he isn't on the intel communities hitlist. They still have time. Vance for pres in 2025.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

What makes you think Vance wouldn't be worse? He's knee deep in Project 2025 and seems more than willing to see that through to the end.

Vance is just ambitious, he doesn’t idolize hitler, putin and kim

Vance doesnt have Trumps cult of personality for one, for two once the orange fuckwit dies there will almost certainly be a feeding frenzy to fill the power void. Its entirely possible he could be a lame duck by default simply because the other Republicans are stabbing each other and wont listen.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And then we get Vance. Joy.

[–] HRDS_654@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

NGL, I'm more scared of Vance than Trump.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago

Then we can bitch and moan that Vance got no votes in the primary and was anointed the presidency.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 93 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Likely? Try definitely. Or did PolitiFact forget who controls the House?

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Of course they won't, but damn they should.

Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.

[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

I was gonna say that the reaction from doing this would probably be worse than his presidency if there's absolutely no plausible deniability, but then I thought "naw fuck it, it's the rule of law, let's fucking go go go"

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We actually don't know who controls the house, yet. Republicans need 7 more representatives, Democrats need 17, votes are still being counted.

[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That doesn’t take effect until January

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Ah yeah, thats right, ty.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I think we know.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 85 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Didn't the supreme court say they didn't give a fuck about the constitution?

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case

Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.

There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.

Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.

As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Who watches the watchmen?

[–] nxn@biglemmowski.win 20 points 1 week ago

He's eating the sections. He's eating the amendments. Of the people that live. There.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

As much as I would love to see that, it would 100%, without a doubt, cause blood in the streets. Jan 6th would look like a beach vacation compared to what they would do if congress blocked it.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 36 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Should we accept that the threat of violence get in the way of justice?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There was a window to bar him from office using a technique like this and it was before the election.

Unless the theory is something substantial changed between 11/5 and now this is an absolutely awful idea.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That does not answer my question.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In a perfect world, yes, justice rules supreme for everyone.

In our actual world, if congress overturned the election (which is exactly what it would be), you think the already frothing at the mouth far right wouldn't go apeshit? Imagine if the far right overturned a democraticly elected Democrat. We would lose our shit.

I am all for using every law and policy available to stop fascists. Overturning a seemingly fair election outcome, where the president elect was voted in by electorate AND popular vote is NOT one of those ways.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

If there was a Democrat who did what Trump did, I'd not hesitate to enforce the law because I was afraid of the consequences.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago

As opposed to...blood in the streets over a four year period and then also after?

[–] nxn@biglemmowski.win 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

On J6 one piece of their trash was taken out and they all immediately ran. If anyone should be scared about what happened on that day it should be MAGA.

It could prevent more blood being spilled over a larger time period however. Definitely a "nuke vs ground invasion" dilemma where there are no good options.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Down. Let's fuck em up.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they did that ud have civil war.

load more comments
view more: next ›